New Consulting Paradigms

We have built a unique engagement model by challenging the established paradigms of the consulting industry. This has helped us grow relatively faster than the rest of the consulting industry.

Paradigm-1:

“Consulting firms can only provide recommendations; they cannot implement or guarantee results.”

Our Approach

We are implementation specialists and our fee commits us to work towards significant results. We do not work on effort-based fixed price recommendation projects.

Most consulting firms do not risk sticking their neck out for results. Many of them limit their engagement to providing recommendations. It is far easy and less risky to collect fees for recommendation efforts than to collect it from the accrued benefits to the clients. With clients controlling the decision making process, it appears as if implementation is outside the locus of control of the external consultants. Besides, resistance to change is a natural phenomenon adding on to the risks of implementation.We realized that no person ever resists a change, particularly when he is able to associate the change with significant benefits, at a minimum risk. So any change, which has positive impact on people is always welcome.

We knew if we could bring about significant improvement, while implementing our solution components in a risk-free way, we can not only crumble the so called resistance to change, but also go a step ahead and link our fees to the results.

However, establishing the fact that the wealth creation was actually due to our consulting, remains a challenge.

Paradigm-2:

“Results (particularly, organisation-wide business parameters) are debatable and cannot be easily attributed to an initiative.”

Our Approach

We achieve fast and significant results within a short time of deploying the actions. With Vector’s implementation-based consulting, the time elapsed between start of engagement and first results are one or two months only.

Results, (particularly organisation wide business parameters) are debatable and cannot be easily attributed to an initiative This is true if the results are either within the noise of the system or it takes too long to materialize. In both cases, establishing a direct link is difficult and, at times, even erroneous. With longer elapsed time, many other business variables undergo a change, making results of all long term improvement initiatives debatable. The best way to establish direct causality is when the company gets significant results, surpassing all expectations, within a month or two of implementing a solution step. One solution component at a time and each resulting in significant results in a short time (short enough for all other business parameters to be the same, before and after the implementation.)The question is – Is it really possible to get substantial results within 2-3 months of clients engaging us?

Paradigm-3:

“It is impossible to achieve significant results in a short time. Big results require big efforts and multiple projects in many departments.”

Our Approach

“We use the platform of Theory of Constraints to deliver value, as it is the only methodology that can help focus on the leverage area for expanding the profits of an organisation.”

Can an improvement project in a single department provide significant results for the entire organisation? Or does it take multiple projects in multiple departments? With multiple initiatives, management bandwidth is stretched, which in turn delays all initiatives. Many long term initiatives fizzle out as the initial enthusiasm is hard to sustain without significant and undebatable results. At the same time, getting fast yet minor benefits from so called “low hanging fruits” does not help. We need substantial results on key operational and/or financial parameters in very short time. That is exactly achieved by Theory of Constraints approach, which provides us with the framework to get more from less.TOC approach’s tenet lies in identifying and exploiting the single constraint that limits the company from making more money.

Paradigm-4:

“Implementing a transformation project requires dependence on multiple partners, a management consultant for initial recommendation, and an IT solution provider and internal efforts to manage the change within the organisation.”

Our Approach

We give the client single-point accountability for results. We bring in our own software tools and transition management expertise to deliver the results. We have a separate software team involved in the development and support of tools required in our implementation.

This way of working not only leads to significant delays but also conflicts. We want to prevent this conflict for our clients and provide single point accountability for results.We have built our own tools, as it is very difficult and at times nearly impossible to configure the “uncommon sense paradigms” of theory of constraints in the standard available software products in the enterprise space. Our products are part of the holistic implementation offering. They are simple to understand and easy to use. The tools can be deployed in the shortest possible time, so that the focus remains on managing the transition to new culture and processes rather than IT issues.